I don't know why you are so angry, and I'm baffled by the accusation that I am arguing in bad faith. (As far as I can tell, you and pzabby are arguing from the premise that Ryerson is making a bad-faith marketing pitch to the public.)
Again, I'm not arguing (i) that Ryerson shouldn't happen or (ii) that it will be somehow a sub-standard legal education. Insofar as I'm arguing anything, it's only that, if we take Ryerson at their word, on the basis of the curriculum they are advertising and their proposal, that there's a reasonable chance the legal education be a significantly different from other law schools. What other law school teaches contracts, torts, property, constitutional, criminal, ethics, LRW, admin, and indigenous law in the first year? Or has one semester for electives? Or has a mandatory placement? Or has second-year in which every course involves "simulated practice"? Whether you think this is good or bad, I don't see how you can dismiss these features as irrelevant. The examples you gave of other law school's unique features--a handful of students doing DLS for credit, e.g.--seem insignificant by comparison.
If I am right, I think it will be interesting. It's easy to take for granted exactly that which you are arguing: all the other common law schools are functionally identical, so Ryerson must be functionally identical to other common law schools. But I don't think that follows.
I don't think we know what it would be like to have an alternative to status quo. Isn't that worth talking about? It was really not my intention for this to boil down to 'Ryerson is good/bad.'

I was explicit in not arguing that Ryerson won't be properly accredited or even a bad law school, and I'm not saying the law school ought not to happen. I think that's a disingenuous reading of my post.
It's Ryerson claiming to have an "innovative approach to curriculum." It's "a bold new approach to legal education," e.g. placing "an emphasis on team learning." And looking at the curriculum it is very different from any other school, even (perhaps most notably) in 1L. Again, if I'm wrong, fine. But clearly Ryerson wants us--and prospective students--to think that they are offering "something different" from any other school in Canada.

I was actually thinking of McGill when I wrote that post! McGill's substantive curriculum is certainly different from anything else in Canada. But in more important respects, I think it's similar to other Canadian law schools. I'm referring to more basic things about the nature and content of legal education: the mode of assessment, the academic disposition of the courses, range of extracurriculars, expectations regarding the particular commitment law school entails, etc.
I don't mean to gloss over the differences between McGill and other schools in Canada, as they are significant. But, in five years' time, I wouldn't be surprised if you and I will have more in common, with regards to our legal education, than either of us do with someone graduating from Ryerson. Which isn't to say that a person from Ryerson will be a bad lawyer or is somehow unqualified.
Addendum: To put it somewhat concretely, it's almost a cliche on this website to advise prospective law students that (i) all legal education is pretty much the same in Canada as between common law schools, and that (ii) you should go to jurisdiction you want to practice in as a primary consideration (iii) with expense as another important consideration, with perhaps a caveat for particular kinds of practice areas.
I can see a future in which people might be picking between law schools because they prefer a 'type' of legal education. Which would be strange!

Taking Ryerson at face value, I think there's something to be lamented here -- even if there are supervening reasons to not oppose its establishment. Perhaps this is what some other people are responding to.
As things stand, I think there's something nice about the shared experience of law school within the legal community. We all read the same books; we all completed a similar curriculum. More fundamentally, the norms of legal education are basically indistinct as between law schools (even as between US and Canadian law schools). Ryerson looks different, and I think it poses an implicit threat to this shared experience. I'll be sad if, in 20 years, lawyers from different schools have had radically different experiences in their training. I know this is a bad, emotive, argument against Ryerson law -- but I'm not sure I'm arguing against Ryerson Law.
Perhaps legal education really does need to change along the lines proposed by Ryerson. Or, perhaps we'd be better off with greater selection of divergent curriculums among all the law schools. ("Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend," etc.) But, in that case, I think there really will be something lost in the bargain. Or, perhaps Ryerson won't be any different notwithstanding the marketing material and I'm totally out to lunch.

If you have specific questions I (and others, I'm sure) can try to answer them. FYI you can see the hiring numbers for 1L students here (Faculty hiring) and here (1L Bay St. recruit). Many students finds jobs in the law outside these OCI processes. Others work in non-law related jobs, travel, etc.
It's only disadvantageous to travel after first year to the extent it is advantageous to have legal experience (or just more work experience!) going into the 2L recruit.

I'm not sure if this is moving on per se but, since we're discussing open court principles: What would people think of something like PACER in Canada?
For those who don't know, all US federal court filings are searchable and available online for a 'nominal' fee; the same is true for many if not most state courts. I'm a big fan (and in fact I PACER should be free). In my opinion, it's crazy that we don't have such a system in Canada but I'd be interested in counterarguments. It seems like an impoverished vision of 'open courts' to erect unnecessary and borderline-anachronistic barriers to material the public has both a right and a genuine interest in accessing. I'm thinking particularly of journalists, here.
Anyway, going to court is fun and the OP should do it. But it'd be more fun if you could scope out the matters properly before you show up.

To be crystal clear: (i) if you went to U of T for undergrad, you keep your email but (ii) if you haven’t previously attended U of T you receive a new @mail.utoronto.ca address (which, for the super curious, is hosted by Microsoft).

I took a bunch of "time off" prior to law school. I wouldn't trade it for the world.
I put scare quotes around "time off" because I didn't view that time as a stop-gap between undergrad and law school. Maybe it's a small difference, but I doubt that I'd have gotten as much out of that time had I viewed it simply as a lark or 'prep' for law school.
I would encourage undergrads reading this to give other options -- be it academia or a career -- a try. Nothing to lose, everything to gain. Law school will always be there.

Or, to add to that, that comment seems premised on the belief that one ought to find one's 'meaning' in one's vocation. I think this is an assumption that also too often goes unquestioned. The notion that a job itself must be 'fulfilling' in and of itself -- or, that it is an unqualified good thing if one's career is the source of meaning in one's life -- is often quite toxic, in my opinion. Happiness can spring anywhere.
I don't doubt for a second that there are some people for whom there are some practices which grant this kind of big-picture fulfillment. In fact, I know the search for this fulfillment is why a lot of people go into law. But I don't think we need to second-guess anyone wanting to do corporate law, or law more generally, for instrumental reasons. It can allow you to (e.g.) take care of their loved-ones or invest (in the broad sense) in other valuable activities. It might even be (gasp) satisfying work, even if morally neutral.
That said, I agree that these are the kinds of questions you should ask yourself when taking jobs. And I'm glad that Pzabby chose the right option for him.

My take is that these are two incommensurable options:
On one hand, spending three years at Oxford would be a life-defining experience. You'll come out a different person. But getting an Oxford LLB is not a guarantee of qualifying in the UK (although it's as close as you can get, I'm sure). You'll still have to fight for a pupillage, if you want to be a barrister e.g. You will spend a lot of time with students significantly younger than you, I imagine. And as you noted there will be the obvious hurdles if you want to come back to Canada immediately.
On the other hand, U of T is a great school. You will have a very good shot at practicing law in Toronto. I also think the legal education is outstanding and the student-body phenomenal. Notwithstanding the debt, it's a 'safe' choice. What you are losing is the Oxford experience and the chance of spending a bit more time in the UK.
I think perhaps you want to reflect on what you want your life to look like for the next few years. Do you see law school as the first step in a career, studying and working life alongside future colleagues living more-or-less independently of each other? Or do you love being a student, and want the opportunity to immerse yourself in a unique collegial academic environment without necessarily knowing the outcome for your career? I phrase the question this way because I know that I'd have answered differently over the last few years. If you are unsure, that's okay. There are obviously no bad options, here. I just wouldn't know how to choose.
Congratulations.

There's a bookstore in the basement of the Jackman Building with a small collection of pretty nice clothing. There's also a twice-annual order of specific merch.
As for being taboo: Uh, I wouldn't buy any before coming to law school, personally... but also I can't imagine caring if someone else did. I'd be less concerned about what future class-mates, current law students, and random people on the internet think than what my own friends would consider normal!
Congratulations on your acceptance.

Yeah, these are all anecdotes! But I swear I’ve been told this on a couple occasions—admittedly, by Canadian lawyers in New York.
Perhaps there’s a meaningful distinction between corporate and litigation, in this respect. Maybe it’s just polite self-depreciation. I dunno.

Canadian lawyers are actually quite well-regarded by American law firms, relative to American lawyers of the same year-of-call. I think the thought is that you get more substantive experience as a junior in Canada.
I’m not saying it’s easy to go to New York, exactly, but firms are definitely open to interviewing Canadian lawyers with a bit of experience.

Someone suggested Spier and MacKay a while back in this thread for shirts. I followed that suggestion and was extremely pleased. I haven't bought a suit there, but I'd definitely stop by the next time I need one. If you're in Toronto, I'd give them a go.
(And seriously, their shirts are great.)